InsideOut

About Me

If I can just give to the world more than I take from it, I will be a very happy man. For there is no greater joy in life than to give.
Motto : Live, Laugh and Love.
You can follow me on Twitter too . My handle is @Raja_Sw.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

It's been a few days since the Baba Raghav Das Medical College, Gorakhpur story broke
out.

There has been a lot of discussion about it since. Normally I'm never at a loss for words or for an opinion, but, to be honest, right now, I'm in no frame of mind to discuss the subject here.

Anyway, I’m sure it will eventually settle down, like all stories do. And everyone will just move on.

But right now, I'm STILL struggling to get my head
around it.

How can we be SO callous as a society, that too
towards babies?

Some have tried to brush this off, saying it is
routine for Gorakhpur due to encephalitis attacks. I’ve seen claims that there
have been about 40,000 such deaths in the last four decades, so what’s the big
deal now?

That is a horrendous number – I don’t even know if it
is anywhere close to the truth. But whatever it is, this is a truly pathetic
attempt to rationalize, or justify, these deaths.

If anything, it only shows how shamefully inadequate
our healthcare is, especially outside the major
metros. And, in particular, for those depending on government hospitals, not
being of the AIIMS (or near-equivalent) label.

One can only hope that at least this shocking incident
is a catalyst for serious and immediate action to step up healthcare in India.

None of this helps my current, tormented, state of
mind though.

I've just not been able to get these
deaths out of my head. Those pictures of babies in their parents' arms are
haunting me.

Today, after a very long time, I wrote a
few rhyming lines (I wouldn't dignify this by calling it poetry). I still write
random stuff, mostly in my head, when I'm troubled within. It usually gives me a
bit of relief.

So this is what I wrote today, with the
face of that little dead baby in my mind all the time. I felt like he was talking to me, talking to all of us.

Friday, June 30, 2017

But I’ve just not had the
motivation to compile my thoughts in a coherent manner and put them up here.
It’s so much easier to just tweet them randomly. I do tweet quite a bit. That
way I get my thoughts out of my system. But I’m not sure this is always the best way to get thoughts across, even if a
topic is well-threaded. I guess, to some extent, it depends on the topic too.

Today I decided I’d take the
“hard” way out on a topic that’s bothering me a bit. So instead of taking the
easy Twitter route, I’m putting down my thoughts here, on this blog post.

I want to talk about the
#NotInMyName protests against mob lynching that took place a a couple of days ago. They
happened in various cities across the country and in London.

Thousands participated in
these protests, despite rain and traffic. Without these hindrances, and had it
been on a weekend, there’s every reason to believe the participation would have
been even higher. People of all age groups could be seen – suggesting the youth
and elderly both felt strongly enough about the issue to brave the odds and be
physically present at the protest venues.

There was physical presence
from the Hindi film industry (Bollywood) too in the form of Shabana Azmi. In
Bangalore, Girish Karnad could be seen in the protests. Others, like Diya Mirza
and Varun Dhawan, expressed solidarity through Twitter. There might have been others – I wasn’t
keeping track of this.

But this post isn’t about who was present, or who supported the
protests.

It’s about those who didn’t.

I believe there is a
significant number of persons who had reservations about the protest and didn’t
support it one bit. Forget their not being present at the venues, they were
fairly vocal in their objection to the protest itself.

I’ve tried to understand the
reasons for this. I even put out a Twitter poll before the event to try to get
a sense of the reasons, but, given my very limited reach, there were only a
handful of responses. Too small a sample size to be of any use.

To my simplistic mind, these
protests were against lynching. So anyone who’s against lynching would
naturally identify with the cause. So even if he or she couldn’t be physically
present, he or she would support it online, or, at least in spirit.

But things are rarely that
simple in the real world, are they? That’s one reason I feel increasingly out
of place here – but that’s a discussion for another day.

Yes, things are usually not black-and-white
in this world – I’ll be the first to concede that. Binaries are not just
simplistic, but even dangerous because they lock you in, without considering
you might not be entirely with, or against, one of the arguments. There are
many intermediate points between two ends of a spectrum, between a Yes and a
No, creating various shades of grey. The world might be becoming digital - but
issues aren’t. They’re still nuanced – and that nuance must be respected.

I get all that, I really do. I
read a fair bit of political and social commentary, hopefully getting different
perspectives on a subject to enrich my understanding of it.

But I wonder whether we sometimes don’t just
overdo it. And, as a result, end up with
nothing to show.

Sure, it makes for fine copy.
You get appreciated for your intellect, and for your analytical abilities. But
what have you really achieved, other than throw another spanner in the works?

So I think it might be useful
to take a step back and look at an idea for WHAT it’s trying to do, instead of
being immediately dismissive of it. Or worse, finding some reason to run it down. Fact is, nothing being perfect,
there will usually be a reason that can be found. Certainly if one searches
hard enough. That’s how critics often make a living.

Let me put this in the context
of the #NotInMyName protests.

Broadly, from what I could
gather, the objections to it took the
following forms:

1.How dare you use
the #NotInMyName hashtag

2.All this is a
waste of time anyway, we all know it’s not going to make the slightest
difference

3.This is all
agenda-driven. These guys are trying to make it look like the situation is much
worse than it really is.

This isn’t an exhaustive list
– they were just the most common reactions I came across. If there were any
other reasons for objecting to it, I’d be
happy to know.

Let’s examine each one now.

1. Use of the #NotInMyName hashtag

I totally agree with those
objecting to it. If you’re against lynching of all types, this doesn’t say it
clearly.

This hashtag, taken at face
value, implies, it’s meant for Hindus to use to protest against “Hindutva”,
which is responsible for recent incidents of lynching of Muslims by Hindu
bigots. That’s what this implies.

Technically, that excludes the lynching of the
Kashmir police officer, Ayub Pandith, because he wasn’t lynched by a Hindu mob.

Technically, that makes Hindutva the target of this
protest, no one else. This, while savarna Hindus themselves have been
responsible for countless lynching of Dalits over centuries. Now they find fault with Hindutva bigots but if they have
look into the mirror, they’re as much worthy of being a target of protests, as
the target they protest against. The
irony of this #NotInMyName tag didn’t escape Dalits.

Personally, I’d have preferred
to use an action-oriented hashtag like #StopLynchingNOW. Yes, it doesn’t have
the ring of a #NotInMyName – but it’s far more inclusive and far more direct.

A #NotInMyName tag says, “I don’t endorse
what’s happening”. A #StopLynchingNow
goes further – it says “I don’t endorse what’s happening AND I want you to stop
it RIGHT NOW”. It demands action – in that sense, it goes a little bit further
than just a “disclaimer” protest.

Maybe this would have caused
less resentment amongst those who objected to the protests because the tag
itself put them off.

Personally, I believe the
protesters didn’t mean to exclude anyone.
They were protesting just as much against the violence towards Ayub
Pandith as they were for Junaid and others. This was even visible in places
where Ayub’s name was specifically mentioned.

But there are enough folks out
there who will exploit every slip you make, however unintentional. Times now
are such (pun entirely intended).

One thing I will say though in
favour of Dalits who rejected the protests. For centuries, they’ve been at the
receiving end of the worst types of atrocities from the upper caste. How many
upper-caste folks have protested at
Jantar Mantar or Town Hall for them, demanding rights for Dalits?

When Dalits do protest in
their own way, every effort is made to quell their protest, as if they’re
committing a crime. In fact, many upper-caste don’t even want to acknowledge
the issues Dalits face.

So maybe at least some Dalits
saw this #NotInMyName protest as being for the right cause, but not with the right people. To be honest, I
can’t blame them. I’d like them to have participated – but the platform
probably wasn’t one they feel comfortable with.

Moving on, to point 2.

2. It’s a waste of time, it’s not going to make a
difference anyway.

This attitude too, I can
understand. I don’t agree entirely with it – protests HAVE made a difference in
the past, though a large number end up being just an expression of discontent,
rather than being a catalyst for change.

The thing is, in a democracy,
apart from casting his vote every so many years (once in 5 years, in India), a
citizen really doesn’t have much power to influence policy just on his own.
Even if he approaches his representative, he’ll most likely be told “get me x
number of signatures to prove there’s a mass demand for this”. That is, if he
is given a hearing at all.

That is why we have petitions
made in public interest, which seek to
get as much public support as possible. The power, and credibility, lies in
numbers.

The same applies to protests
on streets. If there’s a sizeable number on the streets for a cause, there’s a
chance it’ll be considered by those sought to be influenced.

Of course, there’s every
chance it won’t. Much depends on the attitude of the authority. The more
receptive and responsive, the more likely it will work. I leave it to you to
judge how receptive and responsive this government is, with regard to this
particular issue.

(Aside:

PM Modi today made a statement
condemning killing in the name of cows. Some see this as a “victory” of the
#NotInMyName protests. There might well
be some truth in this, especially since
international media like BBC and New York Times covered the protests – and we
know how sensitive the government is to anything that might tarnis its
international “stainless” image.

My own take on this is – I
couldn’t care less.

My skepticism, honed over 40+
years of following politics and listening to politician-speak, makes me reject
all talk, and focus on action. Action always talks louder than words – so, if
you don’t mind, I’ll applaud when I see gau-rakshak violence actually stop.

By the way, I’ve never asked “why didn’t the PM condemn
Dadri or A or B?” I don’t believe in it. What will we get? “Kadi ninda”? We see it ALL the time.
In my entire life, I’ve never seen “kadi ninda” solve any issue –yet it’s the
first thing everyone expects, and leaders often offer, in a situation. Sure, we
shouldn’t drape a criminal in the tricolor, but I think we should have slightly
higher expectations of governance from our leaders than just words. )

Back to this issue.

Even if this particular
protest is seen as futile, the fact that it elicited so much response, ON THE
GROUND, is itself noteworthy. We’re used to armchair warriors, typing
furiously, but reluctant to get out of their armchairs. That this made some of
them actually go on the streets is a victory of sorts in itself.

Was this the right issue to
pursue? Weren’t there better issues that should have been protested more? Like
farmer suicides. Or demonetisation.
Valid questions that were asked.

The thing is, it’s not
either/or. One can protest this AND protest farmer suicides. One doesn’t have
to run down one protest by doing whataboutery with another. Besides, it is
often a series of protests over time that makes an impact, rarely just one
isolated protest.

Moving on to point no.3

3. This is agenda-driven. The situation isn’t as bad
as it is being made out to be.

Maybe I should add a line
“These people are Modi-bashers anyway.”

Maybe another one “Where were
these guys when lynching was happening during UPA? Why were they silent then?”

This point really doesn’t
merit too much discussion. I’m a bit tired of every critique being turned into
an “anti-Modi” accusation. Surely some of us are better than that?

How bad does a situation need to be? How many deaths are “ok” to happen,
before a protest can get their nod?

As for those who say “why
didn’t you protest during UPA-time lynching”, one approach to counter this would
be to show numbers. Indiaspend did come up with numbers to show that cow-based
lynchings have gone up in the last couple of years.

Even so, I’d rather just say “Yes, maybe we should have
protested then too. But you know what? Just
because we didn’t protest then, is no reason not to protest now.” Two wrongs
don’t make a right.

For me at least, it’s not
about a BJP govt or a Congress govt or any party’s govt. It’s about the issue. And we need to keep
raising the bar on ourselves too – if we failed in the past, we need to learn
not to repeat those mistakes again.

This is about lynching – my
simple mind asks, how can any protest against it be wrong?

And THIS is what has been
bothering me. (I did start this post by saying that something was bothering
me.)

I keep asking myself – how can you NOT support a protest against
lynching?

I totally accept the points
made by those against the #NotInMyName hashtag.

I even accept that, as one
standalone protest, this one might not make any difference.

But…but…does that mean the
protest against lynching is wrong?

People are being killed – shouldn’t
we all be united against this killing? So some people want to organize a
protest against it – must we weaken their efforts by running them down?

If power truly lies in
numbers, we’re doing our best to ensure we aren’t united. Guess who wins when
we are not united?

Yes, we have our
differences. Show me one cricket or
football team, with 11 players who are in perfect harmony with each other.
There are differences between players, their background is different, their
conditioning is different, they have egos – and yet, when they have a cause
that brings them together, they keep all that aside. They need to, because they
need to fight for a bigger cause. They need to try and win the game – together
as a team.

We know that those who fought
for India’s freedom from the British had differences between themselves too.
But they didn’t let these come in the way of their collective struggle – the
British would probably have liked to see them break up, and thus break their
resistance.

We have a lot of differences
amongst ourselves – and I don’t mean to trivialize any of these. They might
well be valid too – but there are times when we need to park them aside and
unite for a purpose.

A citizen protest against
lynching (or rape, or any crime) is one such purpose. Unless one supports the crime, this isn’t the
time to let one’s differences come in the way.

Heck, even the US teamed up
with Russia/USSR to defeat Hitler in the Second World War. And we know how
ideologically different the US and Russia/USSR were, otherwise.

Which is why I was
disappointed.

While those in the protest
said they felt exhilarated by it, the protests against the protests showed me,
as if I needed evidence, the fault lines
in our society. The hate, the contempt, the mistrust we have for each other.

Once again, this isn’t about
BJP or Congress or any government.

It’s about us – and how we’re
letting hate into our lives.

There’s a LOT of work we need to do on this front.

And we need to do it NOW.

Otherwise, if we let this hate
get the better of us, it will destroy us.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

T20 is
the flavor of cricket today. Test cricket is “too slow” for these busy times.

(Typical
conversation:

This goes on for the WHOLE day?

No, not
one. Five.
Five? Five full days?

Yes. And
even after that, it could be a draw. No winner or loser.

You want
to kill me? Kill me NOW.)

News too
has imbibed this supreme sense of urgency, an outcome of this instant
gratification urge. Every outlet, in its rush to be “the first” to break the
story, is happy to just push it out there, not fact-checked, unedited. As long
as it is “the first”. People’s attention
span probably ensures they’ll just
skim through it anyway – assuming they go past the headline first. And news comes at them at such a rapid pace anyway, they’ll forget this piece the moment
the next one appears in their inbox, or is delivered on social media.

That’s
the world we live in today. And that’s ok – these are fast-paced times.

But this
also means we sometimes miss the essence of something significant because we
are too caught up in our instant gratification trip. It’s not happening fast
enough for our minds to appreciate any movement at all. So we conclude, nothing
is happening . But it’s happening in ITS time, not ours. Something we will
appreciate only if we give it ITS time.

Ok, let
me stop talking in this Deepak Chopra-esque lingo and come straight to the
point.

I am
referring to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its evolution.

When the
results of the Punjab Assembly elections were announced today, there was a huge
sense of disappointment amongst AAP
supporters. Many of them had worked incredibly hard for the party, giving it their everything. They'd even guarded EVMs, fearing they might be manipulated during the 5-week waiting period between voting and counting.

AAP came
in with "just" 20 seats out of 117. This, when at one time, a few months ago,
they were talking of 80+ seats, even 100 seats!

That’s
quite a comedown!

The
incumbent, the Akalis, did even worse. Expectations from them were very low
anyway, so they probably matched, or even surpassed, these low expectations.

The
runaway winner was the old hand, the Congress Party. Thanks to a leader the
electorate largely trusted, Capt Amarinder Singh. And of course, the
organization at ground level that this grand old party has.

So AAP
ended up a very distant second. But, even so, having come in second, it is the
main opposition party in the Punjab Assembly.

This
made me think.

Was I
expecting AAP to sweep Punjab? Not really. I certainly expected them to do much
better than they did, but I never once underestimated the other two big parties.

Both Congress and the Akalis are entrenched
parties, with cadres loyal to them. They’ve both fought many elections before
and are surely aware of the tricks of the trade, especially how to woo the
electorate. Both are deep-pocketed and can comfortably call upon resources from
outside Punjab whenever required.

Compare
this with AAP. It’s a 4-and-a-little-something year old party, with very little
experience of contesting elections. Although it did contest general elections
in Punjab in 2014, this was the first time it was seeking votes from Punjab
voters to govern them in their own state.

AAP’s
footprint, at least that which could have been relevant to the Punjab voter,
was almost entirely in Delhi. It might claim to have a good report card to show
for its two years in Delhi – but it was still a relatively unknown commodity
for the Punjab voter. Many of the AAP candidates must have been new
names for the voters.

Compare
this with the Congress and SAD. In 2012, Congress got about 40% of the voteshare, even more than SAD's 35%, though SAD won the elections. So this time even if there was huge anti-incumbency in Punjab, wouldn't it be natural to expect these anti-incumbency votes to go to a party that is already extremely well-entrenched in the state? That has a very strong local leader in Capt Amarinder? Why would a voter pick an untested name from an untested party over a
familiar, trusted, one?

On what
basis then were the predictions of 80-100 seats for AAP based?

Based purely on euphoria from seeing crowds
at campaigns held well before election date?

At least if these crowds had
assembled just a few days before election date, one could have made a case for
AAP having a realistic chance of winning.

There
were probably many reasons for AAP’s less-than-expected performance. I
don’t want to dwell on them here.

I do want to however dwell on the expectation
itself. That's because I strongly believe the disappointment stems from this expectation.

Otherwise, getting 20 seats in a state you're contesting for the first time, against two formidable opponents would normally be considered a victory for a new party.

I think
it all started with the Delhi landslide.

67/70 is
mind-blowingly phenomenal by any standards.

But it
is also ripe for the creation of illusions.

Had AAP
won Delhi with a more modest 40/70, nobody would've been throwing numbers
like 100/117 in Punjab. That is an obscene domination, but when you’ve seen
67/70, a 100/117 looks, well, doable.

Which,
for the party itself, is just fine. You contest to win. And to win every seat
you contest.

But when
the “new normal” being talked about becomes 80/117 or even more, you’re just
setting yourself up for disappointment.

After
all, Delhi is history, Punjab is a fresh election. You need to start from
scratch to win over every single voter all over again. One vote at a time,
building up to one seat at a time, building up to a majority. It is a
painstaking process, requiring huge amount of investment of time and money. Unlike other deep-pocketed parties, AAP
largely depends on volunteers for both their time and money. It was going to be a real tough ask to
harness these resources for 117 constituencies.

Seen
this way, AAP should have been an underdog to start with. That it wasn’t, is
down entirely to unrealistic expectations, whether created by the party itself
or by others.

Also
seen from this bottom-up angle, that AAP has managed to get 20 seats,
contesting for the first time in Punjab state elections, should be seen as positive by the neutral observer.
Until now, Punjab had seen mostly a bi-party contest. This time, a third party
entered the fray – and ended up being the main opposition party in the
Assembly.

This
might serve as a good experience for AAP in Punjab. By the time the next state
elections come along, AAP might have settled in better in the state, and broadened its base. This is part of the
evolution process of a political party.

Which
brings me to the evolution of AAP, as whole.

And
brings me back to the point I started this piece with. On these fast-paced
times and the concomitant lack of patience to allow things to evolve.

Sometimes
it’s hard to believe that AAP is not even 5 years old. Compare this with
entrenched parties, who’ve been around for decades, with strong organization
structure and cadres around the country. AAP is nowhere close to this at the
moment.

Yet, the
buzz is all about where AAP is going to contest next, and how it is going to
“shake” the biggies in that state. Gujarat next? Then what?

Much as
I appreciate the excitement that seems to follow any AAP indication, or even
speculation, of contesting elections, I
think we need to temper our electoral expectations on AAP. Enough of this hype. It’s not like other parties are sleeping and
are just going to let AAP walk all over them.

Yes, by
all means, AAP should contest every election it wishes to, if it has the resources to do so. Even if it wins one seat (or, as in the case of
Goa, not even that one), it might be a first step to making its presence known
in that state. It might have a small vote share which might not translate to
seats, but is an encouraging vote of confidence from those few voters.

But, for
heaven’s sake, keep the hype down. Put in all the effort to win – but don’t
go about making statements like “we’re going to sweep it”. Your volunteers
might need pumping up, but there are better ways of motivating them.

Otherwise you set yourself up for situations like today. What
should be seen as a victory of sorts in Punjab – becoming the second largest
party, and therefore the main opposition party – now feels like a defeat.

All
because of hype and unrealistic expectations.

AAP is
still evolving. It’s still very early days for it – we don’t know how its
footprint will be 5 years from today, 10 years from today. It might have a
significant presence in many states by then. It might be in government in a
few, maybe the main opposition party in others. Especially given the state of
the Congress party at the moment, AAP might become the biggest national party
after the BJP.

Or it
might not. Already, based on just today’s results, some have written the
obituary of the party. Somewhat reminiscent of what happened after the LS
elections of 2014.

All of
this is, of course, in the realm of speculation.

What AAP
can do is keep doing its job, and building credibility as a party. This might
not win it elections in the short run,
since it is still very much an outsider, fighting for mind space against
entrenched parties with established cadres and networks.

But as
it gains credibility, as its work gets talked about more, as it builds more
institutional strength and capability, it has every reason to hope for more
electoral gains too. This might take
time but if it is on the right track, it should eventually see results for all
its good work.

In
between, there will, of course, be electoral hits and misses. These just need to
be taken in its stride, without getting carried away - or agitated - about a hit
or a miss. After all, an electoral result is not an absolute reflection of one
party, it is relative to how voters perceive others in the fray.

So my
advice to AAP would be, just be grounded. And patient. It might be frustrating at times, but play it like a Test match.
Build the capabilities that enable you to be that “lambe race ka ghoda”. Where you’re in government, let your work
speak for you. Where you’re in opposition, be a tough opposition, demanding
performance from the government. Either way, the winner will be the people of that state or constituency.

Monday, December 05, 2016

For a
while now, I’ve been wanting to write about this demonetization, or note ban (whatever
you want to call it). If for nothing else, just to get it out of my system. It’s
been bothering me for days now – especially when I read about all that’s
happening as a result of it, most of it not positive.

But I
decided against writing about it here. There’s SO much out there already,
written by people far more competent than me, so what additional insight can I
provide, that has not already been provided by someone?

I have
tweeted rather extensively on the topic – but it continues to bother me. So finally
this evening, I decided I’d write SOMETHING. I’d like to say “short and sweet”,
but I don’t find anything sweet about this, sorry. Maybe if things get better
over time, I’ll commend this move, but for now, I’m staying firmly in the
present.

Instead
of writing in prose, I decided I’d write some couplets, for a change.

Let me
warn you – there’s absolutely nothing new in the content, so if you’re looking for
something new here, you’re wasting your time.

Friday, May 22, 2015

In the last week, the
headlines in both mainstream and social media have been dominated by news of
the turf war between Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor (LG), Najeeb Jung, and the
Delhi Government, notably the Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal.

The matter of contention is
the appointment by the LG of Shakuntala Gamlin, senior bureaucrat, to the
position of acting Chief Secretary of Delhi, standing in for the Chief
Secretary, KK Sharma, who is on leave.

Both sides have been vocal and
emphatic in stressing their authority. Supporters of both sides have been even
more vocal, especially on social media and in TV debates.

Understandably, given the
nature of the battle, lawyers have stepped in, both suo moto and on request of
both parties, to give their opinion on the subject. Suddenly one hears of the
proviso to Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution of India. One hears of the NCT
of Delhi Act, 1991. One hears of the “Transaction of Business Rules”.

All of this has been very
educational and interesting for a layman like me. I will confess my utter and
total ignorance in these matters.

As of the time of writing this
piece, the matter is still unresolved. While some respected legal experts like
Gopal Subramaniam, Indira Jaising and Rajeev Dhawan seem to be backing the
Delhi government’s position, the LG has gone one step further and even annulled
bureaucratic postings made by the Delhi Govt, claiming that only he has
constitutional power to do transfers and postings.

Clearly the turf war has just
got uglier.

No doubt, the decibel levels
will only rise further. Not just on social media but also on India’s MSM, where
this “story” is being keenly followed and debated in the daily evening
primetime debate sessions.

People will discuss the
politics around Gamlin’s appointment. They will discuss the alleged locking out
of a bureaucrat from his office. They will discuss all sorts of nitty-gritty
issues relating to the bureaucracy. They will quote constitutional provisions,
the NCT Act and such, to try to make a case to prove their point.

All of this will happen. We
are a country that loves to debate, especially when this gives us a chance to
display our knowledge of technicalities. Everyone is suddenly an expert,
whether acknowledged or self-professed. In the worst case, if the
technicalities are too cumbersome to understand - or too inconvenient to face -
we can always switch to generalities, and even ad hominem attacks. “As usual,
Kejriwal is doing dramebaazi – making a mountain out of a molehill”, or “Najeeb
Jung is a Reliance agent, now being used by BJP only to harass AAP”.

Sadly, this isn’t just the
street talk on social media. It is the type of talk you see in discussion
panels on mainstream media. Everyone has his knives out, as if his life depended
on it.

Sigh.

I think we are missing the
woods for the trees.

Honestly, I don’t care who is
right or wrong in this matter. We can debate every fine point, get all the
legal experts to give their views. And then?

Tomorrow there will be another
point of contention between the LG and the government. Another disagreement,
another showdown. Both sides seem to believe they are in the right – neither
seems to want to cede to the other. So the next flashpoint is just around the
corner, waiting to happen. It could be a matter of days, or weeks, but it’s
inevitable.

Are we going to get into this
mess every single time? The media might not mind it – in fact, it might even
relish it. But we need to ask ourselves – is this good for Delhi?

The answer has got to be an
emphatic NO. How can it be good for Delhi in the long run, if so much energy,
effort and time is wasted in turf squabbles?

So what’s the solution?

Let me start by stating what I
feel is NOT the solution.

The solution is NOT that one
party (LG or Delhi government) accepts the other’s authority just to avoid
conflict.

I say this, because I have
seen comments saying “We never had this problem during Sheila Dikshit’s time.
She and the LG always managed to work out their issues through compromise”.

Sorry, but that’s not a
solution. That is sub-optimal performance, by ducking the problem.
You avoid conflict, but you also don’t execute the responsibility entrusted to
you.

The solution is to address the
REAL problem that Delhi faces in this respect. It is not Kejriwal or Aam Aadmi
Party or Najeeb Jung.

The REAL problem for Delhi is
this “partial statehood” status.

Now, there might have been
very good reasons in the early 1990s for changing Delhi’s status from a pure
Union Territory (UT) to a “state”. Since these decisions are not taken
overnight, I am sure much thought went into this decision.

I am equally sure plenty of
thought went into the decision NOT to make Delhi a full-fledged state, along
the lines of other states.

As a result, with appropriate
changes in the Constitution and by passing other laws to enable this “state” to
be created, we now have Delhi as a “state” – but not a “full state”. It has
some federal powers, but is limited in some areas.

This is about as nonsensical
as it gets. No amount of creative law-making can get around this basic fact.

That every Delhi government
till now has accepted this, and gone with it (even if grudgingly), is a shame.
And certainly no reason to justify the perpetuation of this monstrosity of an
arrangement.

It is an insult to the
electorate that their elected representatives have only limited powers to serve
them. It is a travesty of the whole purpose of elections, a farce of democracy.

One of the first principles of
management is about authority and accountability. He who is accountable, must
have authority to execute. And he, who has authority, is entitled to be held
accountable for use of such authority.

In the Delhi context, the elected
members are accountable to their electorate. But they don’t have full authority
to execute. The LG has executive powers, but is not accountable to the people –
at least not through an election process.

This just cannot be right. I
am no legal or political expert, I am just an aam aadmi – but this defies basic
logic.

That we have allowed this to
happen for 23 years confounds me. I can only conclude that Delhi has been
passive all along – most likely indifferent to this blatant joke of a
structure. That each Delhi government till now has accepted this, and played
along, only baffles me further. To be fair to each previous Delhi government, I
understand it has also occasionally expressed its misgivings. But then, this
has never been vocal enough. It has never stirred up serious debate on the
topic.

That is why I am hoping this
gets uglier.

No, not the Gamlin issue in
itself. But the stand the current Delhi government is taking vis-à-vis the LG. The
sad reality in India is that unless things get really ugly, they just get
brushed under the carpet.

I am hoping this will lead to
a bigger debate about roles and responsibilities of the LG vs the Delhi
government. Probably wishful thinking, considering Indian media is far more
likely to discuss twists and turns of every minor incident, rather than discuss
the bigger picture holistically.

That is what we need. A
vigorous, holistic discussion about Delhi’s political status.

Should it be given “full state”
status?

Should it revert to being a
Union Territory?

Should part of it be carved
out as a full state, the rest being under the Centre’s control? That way, maybe many
of the concerns of giving it full statehood, could be addressed.

It is now 23 years that we’ve
had Delhi / NCT in this new avatar. During this period, its population has
grown tremendously in all directions.

Surely it is worth taking a
step back now and reviewing the situation?

Do we have the political will
to do so? If we did, we would probably not even be having this
discussion.

I think we, the people, have
to raise our voices. Today, thanks to social media, we have an opportunity to
make our voices heard like never before.

So let's do it. Let's force a debate on this. Let's get the concerned parties (and I don't mean political parties) to put their heads together and work out a clean, structural, long-term political structure for Delhi.

We owe it to the people of
Delhi.

P.S: For the moment, I am deliberately staying away from expressing a view on what the outcome of such a holistic debate should be, for Delhi. I do have a view (doesn't everybody? :-) ) - and I am happy to discuss it too - but that is NOT the purpose of this piece.

Right now, my main objective is to have this whole discussion elevated to a higher level. Stop discussing the incidents, discuss the cause. Fix the hole in the ceiling, instead of mopping the floor below.

All I ask for now is to find a structural solution to get rid of the scope for confusion that exists currently due to a seemingly dual authority structure. Legal eagles might dispute this, quoting provisions of various laws but this shouldn't even be necessary. Keep structures simple and clear. Keep roles and responsibilities clean and transparent. Marry authority with accountability. That's all I ask for.

If politicians, and the mainstream media, for whatever reasons, will not take the first step, we, the people, must.

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Even as I type this I realize it might not be the smartest thing to do – especially since, as a man, I open myself up to accusations of mansplaining, or, of being patronizing towards women. But , as if to prove true the adage “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”, I am going ahead and putting my thoughts out there on a topic that’s been bothering me for a while now.

The trigger for this post is a development that I’ve been observing of late – of a number of women suddenly going out of their way to trash feminism. I’m not the least bit surprised that men do this – but it does come as a bit of a surprise to see so many women now get into the act. Not only do they seem to consider being called a feminist a grave insult, they do not miss any opportunity to mock feminists and the entire feminist movement.

In a sense, this post is addressed to them.

I see that there’s an entire movement out there called “Women Against Feminism” . On the site by this name one can see pictures of women holding placards explaining why they do not need feminism in their lives.

Fair enough. Each one of them has a reason not to support the feminist movement. Either they feel it doesn’t help women, or they think men are being unnecessarily targeted, or they feel they want to fight their battles on their own.

It is of course an individual choice but I think that somewhere they are missing something fundamental to not just feminism, but to any movement.

And that is, you don’t fight only for YOURSELF, the individual – you fight for the rights of a much broader section of society. You fight against injustice to this section of society. You fight against discrimination that this section of society faces.

In the case of feminism, it is about the female gender. You don’t have to individually have faced injustice or discrimination to know that millions of women all around the world are subject to injustice and discrimination every single day of their lives, purely due to their gender.

This isn’t made-up, it’s a fact. And if you’re a woman and haven’t faced this, good for you. I’m happy for you. But the world is a little larger than just you – and there are, sadly, many more women out there who aren’t quite as fortunate as you.

So the very least you can do is to acknowledge this fact and not make it all about yourself. If you don’t want to participate in any effort to improve the lot of all those women, fine. Nobody is forcing you to. But by mocking the efforts of those who ARE trying to make a positive change for these women, you are, even if unintentionally, harming the cause of these, less fortunate, women.

Let’s just take stock of the situation for a moment. For centuries, women have been suppressed and not treated as equals in society. They’ve been relegated to doing tasks than men did not want to do. Under the pretext of being the persons “bringing home the bacon” (often conveniently appropriating for themselves the sole right to do so), men have dominated family structures, and, by extension, society at large.

Of course, there have been exceptions. But this is exactly what they have been – exceptions. To the norm of male domination. Anything women have achieved has almost always been INSPITE of the odds being severely stacked against them. Which is why, when you look at history, you hear of a woman here, or a woman there – when half the world’s population is female.

When this has been happening for centuries, generation after generation, small wonder that in many societies, women have got conditioned to playing second fiddle to men. Right from their birth, they are made to feel that men are the stronger sex. And not just physically so. They are made to feel that their raison d’etre is to serve men. That they are the “natural nurturers”. That their lives are incomplete without men. That they would be lost without men in their lives. A single woman is either frowned upon, or pitied. She needs to be married off as soon as possible.

Whether we choose to use the term “patriarchy” or not, the fact is that there has been, for centuries, a power imbalance between men and women. One of the most striking examples of this is that in one of the supposedly most progressive societies of them all, the United States of America, on a national level, women did not have voting rights till 1920!

Today things are better, no doubt. Especially in western societies, the fight for gender equality has presumably made considerable progress, although even today gender-based discrimination is prevalent. It still manifests itself in multiple ways – whether in the form of less compensation for women compared to men, or women being overlooked when it comes to breaking that glass ceiling. And women continue to face harassment and abuse of all sorts – a result of men feeling a sense of entitlement to treat women this way.

In any case, whatever has been achieved, it has not come easy. Giving up power is never easy. And rarely voluntary. So to make men share power with women has always been a challenge. Women have had to fight for their rights. They have had to fight to force legislative change. They have had to fight to get themselves better education, better jobs, more financial independence.

The picture is much bleaker in societies like India where patriarchy is far deeper ingrained. Social mores and conditioning have made life in India incredibly tough for most women. In fact, even before they are born, even as a foetus, many are discriminated against and unwanted.

And then, right through their lives, it is a struggle for most women.

A struggle to live their life THEIR way instead of having to fit their life to suit other people. (In India, women seem to be perennially living for other people and never for themselves).

A struggle to ward off harassment by men, who seem to have an idea that the sole purpose of existence of a woman is for their (men's) enjoyment.

A struggle to be recognized as equal in society to men (although, as one wise woman said, this is too low a target to aim for).

A struggle to even be treated as just a person with her own identity, instead of only having an identity as somebody’s mother or sister or wife or daughter.

There’s much more that women go through, all through their lives. And I’m talking millions of women out there.

It’s an uphill struggle – but thankfully there are people who care to bring about positive change. They call out gender injustice and gender inequality at every opportunity, they work on improving awareness and reducing conditioning, they fight for legislative change. In general, they do whatever they can, with their limited means, to redress the power imbalance that is still very heavily stacked against women.

If they call themselves feminists it is because it has to do with women’s rights and gender equality. Nothing particularly complicated about the term.Yes, some of them possibly do this term disservice by making this not about gender equality, but turning it into an anti-men tirade. They may have their motivations and frustrations to do so – I do not wish to speculate on these. I'm quite clear about one thing. Not being a woman, however much I might emphathise with women, I do NOT go through the experiences they go through in life. That is why, although I might disagree with the views of some "feminists", I do not let it cloud my view on feminism. I distinguish between feminism (the movement) and feminists (the practitioners). And just like with any movement, not all practitioners get everything right. To find fault with a movement based on the acts of a few, is unfair to the movement. If you fundamentally disagree with the movement because you believe it is completely unnecessary, that's a different thing.

Although feminism gets a lot of flak for coming across as being anti-men, I've never seen it so. To me, it's always been about gender equality. And that means women and men sharing space as equals.Since historically the affected gender has been female, it is hardly surprising that an overwhelmingly large number of feminists are women. However, there are many men out there too who do understand the need for gender equality. And try to practise it in their own lives. These are just as qualified to be considered feminists and, in my opinion, should not be shut out purely because of their gender. Doing so would only play into the hands of those who claim that feminism is anti-men. After all, men are the cause of the problem and they need to be a big part of the solution. That is why I often wish these men would be more vocal about their views - whether they choose to call themselves feminist or not. Finally it doesn't really matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not. It's a tag (much like "capitalist", "socialist", "communist", "right-wing", "left-wing"). If you don't want to be tagged, fine. What really matters is whether you agree that we need to work towards a more gender-equal society. And that we are still far from it at the moment. At least in some societies.

If you agree, then doesn’t it make sense not to ridicule efforts of those who are working towards this end? And if you agree with the goal but not with the methods, there are constructive ways of getting that message across. Without just coming up with a blanket “I’m against feminism” slogan.

For, when we do this, we just make the whole struggle that much harder. Already vested interests ensure that it’s going to be an uphill struggle. The last thing we want is for their hand to be strengthened.

I know there are those who feel that sometimes the pendulum might have swung too much to the other side. That there are also men who are disadvantaged by the women’s rights movement.

Let’s be clear about one thing. This is NOT a men vs women thing. This is about gender equality. So if men are now having to concede ground to women, ground that gave them an unfair advantage until now, I am all for it. But if women are now having an advantage over men, while in the longer-term it might need redressal, in the shorter-term it might be the only way to ensure longer term equality. So I would be less keen to attempt a correction rightaway.

Let’s also remember that any movement has a life only as long as it has a cause. The fight for gender equality is only as long as there is gender inequality. Just as feminism came into existence because of inequality, it will cease to have a purpose to exist, once we have gender equality (although that might be still be a long way away for now, I’m afraid).

Lastly, while this entire piece has been about women, gender equality and feminism, at a higher level, this is about injustice and discrimination in society.

Discrimination can be for a whole host of reasons – religion, region, race, caste, class, sexual orientation, gender. So gender is just one basis for discrimination.

Much of what I’ve said here applies to other forms of discrimination too. One doesn’t have to be specifically discriminated against, whether as an individual or the target group, to know that discrimination exists.

So if you genuinely believe that we need to end such discrimination, even if you are not able to participate in the process, the least you can do is to not hinder the process.